Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 1 cited by

Optimal Quantum de Finetti Theorems via Argmax Rounding

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves optimal finite quantum de Finetti upper bounds: every N-boson state's two-site marginal is within √(d−1)/(2(N−1)) of a Hartree mixture, and via symmetric purification every exchangeable state's two-site marginal is within √

arxiv 2608.02590 v1 pith:7R4BKDCP submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph cs.CC

Fernando Granha Jeronimo , Pei Wu , Haochen Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.CC MSC 81P4590C2215A69 PACS 03.67.-a
keywords quantumdeFinettitheorembosonicstatesexchangeableargmaxroundingsymmetricextensionSDPtracedistancedisentanglerseparabilitytesting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Every N-boson state on (C^d)^⊗N has a two-site marginal that is, in trace distance, at most (1/2)√(d−1)/(N−1) away from a mixture of pure tensor powers |u>

What carries the argument

Argmax rounding: given a top eigenvector of a symmetric-tensor or rectangular SDP lift, choose the tensor power (or product vector) with maximum overlap; first-order optimality eliminates mixed components and second-order optimality bounds the orthogonal component. This replaces universal averaging with an extremal, witness-dependent rounding choice, and the total dimension cost appears only through the trace norm of a (d−1)×(d−1) matrix. The relevant sets are Hartree mixtures SEP_H (mixtures of |u><u|^⊗t), tensor-power mixtures SEP_P, bosonic marginals BOS_N, exchangeable marginals EXCH_N, and two-sided Bose-symmetric extendible states BEXT_{n,m}.

What would settle it

Take a small instance, say d = 2, N = 3, and run the symmetric-tensor SDP: for a random Hermitian witness M on Sym^2(C^d) with ||M||_∞ ≤ 1, compute λ_max(M^[N]) − h(M). A single witness exceeding √(d−1)/(N−1) would directly falsify the two-site bosonic theorem; exhaustive maximization over low-dimensional witnesses would settle whether the claimed gap holds numerically.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the worst-case trace-norm error from an N-boson state's two-site marginal to the closest Hartree mixture equals the integrality gap of a symmetric-tensor SDP relaxation, and that argmax rounding bounds this gap by √(d−1)/(N−1). For a Hermitian witness M, one takes a top eigenvector ψ of the N-site lift M^[N]; choosing the unit vector u with maximal overlap |<u^⊗N, ψ>|, the partial inner product satisfies η_u = c u^⊗2 + ζ_u, where ζ_u lies in Sym^2(u^⊥) and its overlap with every orthogonal square v^⊗2 is at most c/(N−1). A Takagi decomposition and Schatten duality on the resulting (d−1)-dimensional matrix pair give the square-root dimen

Load-bearing premise

The exchangeable theorem and the consequences built on it rely on a cited symmetric-purification lemma: every exchangeable state on (C^d)^⊗N can be purified by adding an environment of the same dimension so that the whole N-pair system remains permutation-symmetric; if that lemma failed, the O(d/N) exchangeable bounds and the purification-based algorithms would not follow from the bosonic theorem alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every N, d ≥ 2, the bosonic two-site de Finetti error is at most √(d−1)/(2(N−1)), and matching lower bounds make this dimension dependence optimal.
  • For exchangeable states, symmetric purification gives the two-site error bound √(d²−1)/(2(N−1)) to mixtures of tensor powers, matching the known lower-order behavior.
  • For every fixed ε ∈ (0,1), there exists an (ε,0)-disentangler with input dimension exp(O_ε(√d log d)); the disentangler conjecture is false.
  • General explicit Best Separable State and trace-norm separability testing admit deterministic exp(Õ(√d/ε))-time algorithms without a perfect-completeness assumption.
  • Spectral truncation of the optimal trace-norm theorem gives a dimension-free bosonic Hilbert–Schmidt de Finetti theorem with the optimal O(N^{−1/2}) rate when dimension may grow.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The witness-dependent argmax rounding scheme may be reusable in other symmetric-extension hierarchies, where choosing an extremal rounding direction instead of averaging could yield similar square-root improvements in integrality-gap bounds beyond de Finetti.
  • The (ε,0) disentangler refutes the original conjecture but does not imply QMA(2) = QMA; a testable next step is whether any stronger notion of disentangling can also be constructed with subexponential input dimension.
  • A dimension-free Hilbert–Schmidt theorem for arbitrary exchangeable states remains open, because partial trace does not contract Hilbert–Schmidt norm; the paper's spectral-truncation method would need a different purification mechanism to extend.
  • The t-site bound's linear factor in t is shown necessary in the paper's joint high-dimensional regime; the exact Schur-label calculations may also pinpoint the optimal constants for small t and fixed d.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proves optimal finite quantum de Finetti upper bounds by a new 'argmax rounding' method. The central result (Theorem 1.1) gives a trace-norm bound sqrt(d-1)/(2(N-1)) for two-site marginals of N-boson states against Hartree mixtures; a symmetric purification argument yields the optimal O(d/N) bound for exchangeable states. The method is extended to t-site marginals (O(t sqrt(d)/N) bosonic, O(t d/N) exchangeable), to two-sided Bose-symmetric extendible states (O(sqrt(min{dA,dB})/sqrt(nm))), and to applications: subexponential disentanglers, subexponential Best Separable State without perfect completeness, subexponential trace-norm separability testing, and a dimension-free bosonic Hilbert-Schmidt theorem with rate O(N^{-1/2}). All key upper-bound lemmas are proved in the text with explicit constants; Appendix B supplies matching lower bounds using rectangular Werner states.

Significance. This is a major advance in the quantitative theory of quantum de Finetti theorems. The proof idea--casting de Finetti approximation as an SDP integrality-gap problem and using first- and second-order optimality at an argmax tensor--is original and likely to be influential. The main bounds settle the dimension dependence left open by Christandl-Konig-Mitchison-Renner and improve the bosonic two-site bound from O(d/N) to O(sqrt(d)/N). The applications are substantial: a subexponential disentangler refuting Watrous's conjecture, the first subexponential explicit BSS algorithm without perfect completeness, the first subexponential trace-norm separability algorithm, and the first dimension-free bosonic de Finetti theorem in Hilbert-Schmidt distance. The manuscript is careful: the central derivations in Sections 3, 4, and 6 are self-contained, constants are explicit, and the lower-bound appendix makes the optimality claims checkable. The main external ingredients are the standard CKMR symmetric-purification lemma and standard representation-theoretic facts used in the lower bounds.

minor comments (6)
  1. [§6.2, Lemma 6.6] The identification 'Sym^n(HA) ⊗ Sym^n(HB) identifies with the summand of Sym^{2n}(H⊕) containing n sites of each label' is only correct via the isometric embedding that symmetrizes across the A/B label boundary with the normalization sqrt((2n)!/(n!n!)). As written, a reader could mistakenly think one simply relabels the first n and last n sites. Please define this isometry explicitly; the subsequent cross-label marginal computation in (6.23) depends on it.
  2. [§3.1.4, Lemma 3.8] The symmetric purification lemma is quoted from CKMR and is load-bearing for all exchangeable results. It is true and short to prove: the canonical purification (I⊗sqrt(σ_N))|Ω⟩ is invariant under simultaneous permutations of the N composite sites. Please include the one-paragraph proof or a more precise statement so the exchangeable theorems are self-contained.
  3. [References] Several reference labels have spacing artifacts: [JL W26], [L W26], and [JWX26] contain stray spaces. These should be normalized before publication.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B.3)] The symbol R_{a,r,t}(μ) is used both for the ratio of weights in (B.3) and later for the central element denoted with a hat in the proof of Lemma B.4. Consider renaming one of them to avoid confusion, e.g., use L_{a,r,t}(μ) for the likelihood ratio.
  5. [§1.3.1] The sentence 'the component in u∨u⊥ is orthogonal to ηu' is slightly misleading: first-order optimality shows ηu has no mixed component, and then orthogonality of the decomposition does the rest. Rephrase for clarity.
  6. [§5.1, Theorem 5.1] The notation O_ε(√d log d) hides the 1/ε dependence. This is standard but should be stated explicitly in the theorem or its proof, since the disentangler conjecture depends on the fixed-ε regime.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity; core de Finetti and applications are self-contained, with only non-load-bearing same-author citations.

full rationale

The central bosonic bound (Theorem 3.1) is derived from an exact dual formulation (Lemma 3.2), a complex-sphere argmax estimate proved in full in Lemma 3.3, and Takagi/Schatten estimates proved in the text; no equation is imported from the authors' cited manuscripts as a black box. Lemma 3.3 is described as the "bosonic counterpart" of the authors' SoS argmax rounding [JWX26], but it is proved in the paper, and its rectangular version is proved in Appendix A. The t-site theorem relies on Fact 4.3 and Lemma 4.4, with Lemma 4.4 proved in the text; the citation to [JW24] is only for a related, quantitatively weaker estimate and for motivation. The exchangeable and EXT corollaries use the CKMR symmetric-purification lemma (Lemma 3.8), which is an external cited result, not a self-citation. Applications—disentanglers, BSS, and trace-norm separability testing—follow directly from the proved two-sided de Finetti theorem, with exact coverage from tensor-power inputs; there is no parameter fitting or renaming of a known result. The Hilbert-Schmidt dimension-free theorem is obtained by spectral truncation applied to the already-proved trace-norm theorem. Lower bounds come from external CKMR and JTC17 constructions. The only same-author citations appear as context and motivation (e.g., "applies the argmax method of Jeronimo, Wu, and Xu (manuscript 2026)" and "in the spirit of the disentangler from unentanglement of Jeronimo and Wu [JW24]") and are not load-bearing; thus the paper warrants at most a minimal non-circular self-reference score rather than a finding of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; all constants are explicit and no invented physical entities are introduced. The paper's load-bearing external assumptions are standard results and cited prior works; the main derivations are self-contained.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Sion's minimax theorem for finite-dimensional compact convex sets
    Used in Lemma 2.1 to exchange the minimum over approximating states with the maximum over witness operators.
  • standard math Schatten duality and Takagi decomposition for symmetric two-tensors
    Used in Proposition 3.5 and Fact 3.4 to identify tensor norms with matrix Schatten norms and to bound the projective norm by √(d-1) times the operator norm.
  • domain assumption CKMR symmetric purification lemma (Lemma 3.8)
    Load-bearing for the exchangeable de Finetti theorem and all purification-based corollaries; a state on (C^d)^{⊗N} is purified in Sym^N(C^d⊗C^d).
  • domain assumption CKMR rectangular Werner lower bounds [CKMR07, Lemma II.5, Corollary III.9]
    Used to establish optimality of the dimension dependence; the paper does not re-prove these lower bounds.
  • domain assumption Harrow–Montanaro reduction from BSS to trace-norm weak membership [HM13, Prop. 16]
    Load-bearing for the trace-norm separability testing algorithm; cited rather than proved in this paper.
  • standard math Tensor-power vectors span the symmetric subspace
    Guarantees that the argmax overlap c is positive in Lemmas 3.3 and A.1.
  • standard math Positive block estimates (Bhatia Proposition 1.3.2) and Fact 2.3
    Used in the spectral-truncation proof of Theorem 6.1 to convert operator-norm tail bounds into Hilbert–Schmidt estimates.
  • standard math Schur–Weyl majorization coupling (OW16, Theorem 1.11)
    Used in Appendix B for the t-site lower-bound calculation and the optimal linear dependence on t.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal Quantum de Finetti Theorems via Argmax Rounding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7R4BKDCP

@misc{pith2026260802590,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal Quantum de Finetti Theorems via Argmax Rounding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7R4BKDCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02590}
}
abstract

We prove optimal finite quantum de Finetti upper bounds. Given a bosonic state $\rho_N\in D(\mathrm{Sym}^N(\mathbb C^d))$, there is a probability measure $\nu$ on the unit sphere such that \[ \left\| \rho_N^{(2)}-\int |u\rangle\langle u|^{\otimes 2}\,d\nu(u) \right\|_1 \le \frac{\sqrt{d-1}}{N-1}. \] By purification, the bosonic theorem also gives the optimal $O(d/N)$ upper bound for arbitrary exchangeable states. These results settle the dimension dependence left open by Christandl, K\"onig, Mitchison, and Renner (CMP 2007). The proof casts de Finetti approximation as sum-of-squares rounding and applies the argmax method of Jeronimo, Wu, and Xu (manuscript 2026). More generally, $t$-site marginals satisfy $O(t\sqrt d/N)$ bosonic and $O(td/N)$ permutation-invariant bounds. Our proof formulates de Finetti approximation as the integrality gap of a symmetric-extension semidefinite program and rounds an optimum by the argmax principle. The sharp bounds have several consequences. For every fixed $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, we construct a channel with input dimension $D=\exp(O_\varepsilon(\sqrt d\log d))=\exp(o(d))$ whose outputs are $\varepsilon$-close to separable states of local dimension $d$ and whose image contains every such separable state, thereby refuting Watrous's disentangler conjecture. We also obtain deterministic $\exp(\widetilde O(\sqrt d/\varepsilon))$-time algorithms for explicit Best Separable State without perfect completeness and for trace-distance separability testing. Finally, spectral truncation gives the first dimension-free bosonic de Finetti theorem in Hilbert--Schmidt distance, with the optimal rate $\Theta(N^{-1/2})$ when the dimension may grow.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02590 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Dependency structure of the main results. Solid arrows show the proof [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. State-set containments underlying the de Finetti theorems. Nesting [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Near-Optimal Gap Amplification for Nonnegative Unentangled Quantum Proofs

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    This paper proves NEXP = QMA^+(2,1-1/poly,1/4+1/poly), a near-optimal gap amplification for nonnegative unentangled quantum proofs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The power of unentanglement

    Scott Aaronson, Salman Beigi, Andrew Drucker, Bill Fefferman, and Peter Shor. The power of unentanglement. In Proceedings of the 23rd IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity (CCC) , pages 223--236, 2008

    2008

  2. [2]

    On the hardness of conversion from entangled proof into separable one, 2024

    Seiseki Akibue, Go Kato, and Seiichiro Tani. On the hardness of conversion from entangled proof into separable one, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Boaz Barak, Fernando G. S. L. Brand \ a o, Aram W. Harrow, Jonathan A. Kelner, David Steurer, and Yuan Zhou. Hypercontractivity, sum-of-squares proofs, and their applications. In Proceedings of the 44th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing ( STOC ) , pages 307--326, New York, NY, USA, 2012. Association for Computing Machinery

    2012

  4. [4]

    Fernando G. S. L. Brand \ a o and Matthias Christandl. Detection of multiparticle entanglement: Quantifying the search for symmetric extensions. Physical Review Letters , 109(16):160502, 2012

    2012

  5. [5]

    Fernando G. S. L. Brand \ a o, Matthias Christandl, and Jon Yard. Faithful squashed entanglement. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 2011

    2011

  6. [6]

    Fernando G. S. L. Brand \ a o, Matthias Christandl, and Jon Yard. A quasipolynomial-time algorithm for the quantum separability problem. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , pages 343--351. ACM , 2011

    2011

  7. [7]

    Brand \ a o and Aram W

    Fernando G.S.L. Brand \ a o and Aram W. Harrow. Quantum de Finetti theorems under local measurements with applications. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) , 2013

    2013

  8. [8]

    Positive Definite Matrices

    Rajendra Bhatia. Positive Definite Matrices . Princeton Series in Applied Mathematics. Princeton University Press, 2007

    2007

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Kothari, and David Steurer

    Boaz Barak, Pravesh K. Kothari, and David Steurer. Quantum entanglement, sum of squares, and the log rank conjecture. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing ( STOC ) , pages 975--988, New York, NY, USA, 2017. Association for Computing Machinery

    2017

  2. [10]

    Caves, Christopher A

    Carlton M. Caves, Christopher A. Fuchs, and R \"u diger Schack. Unknown quantum states: The quantum de Finetti representation. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 43(9):4537--4559, 2002

    2002

  3. [11]

    On quantum estimation, quantum cloning and finite quantum de Finetti theorems

    Giulio Chiribella. On quantum estimation, quantum cloning and finite quantum de Finetti theorems. In Theory of Quantum Computation, Communication, and Cryptography , volume 6519 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 9--25. Springer, 2011

    2011

  4. [12]

    One-and-a-half quantum de Finetti theorems

    Matthias Christandl, Robert K \"o nig, Graeme Mitchison, and Renato Renner. One-and-a-half quantum de Finetti theorems. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 273(2):473--498, 2007

    2007

  5. [13]

    Finite exchangeable sequences

    Persi Diaconis and David Freedman. Finite exchangeable sequences. The Annals of Probability , 8(4):745--764, 1980

    1980

  6. [14]

    Doherty, Pablo A

    Andrew C. Doherty, Pablo A. Parrilo, and Federico M. Spedalieri. Complete family of separability criteria. Physical Review A , 69(2):022308, 2004

    2004

  7. [15]

    The sum-of-squares hierarchy on the sphere and applications in quantum information theory

    Kun Fang and Hamza Fawzi. The sum-of-squares hierarchy on the sphere and applications in quantum information theory. Mathematical Programming , 190(1--2):331--360, 2021

    2021

  8. [16]

    Representation Theory: A First Course , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    William Fulton and Joe Harris. Representation Theory: A First Course , volume 129 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991

    1991

  9. [17]

    The collapse of unentangled stoquastic Merlin--Arthur proof systems

    William Gay and Fernando Granha Jeronimo. The collapse of unentangled stoquastic Merlin--Arthur proof systems. arXiv:2605.16249, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Strong NP -hardness of the quantum separability problem

    Sevag Gharibian. Strong NP -hardness of the quantum separability problem. Quantum Information and Computation , 10(3--4):343--360, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization , volume 2 of Algorithms and Combinatorics

    Martin Gr \"o tschel, L \'a szl \'o Lov \'a sz, and Alexander Schrijver. Geometric Algorithms and Combinatorial Optimization , volume 2 of Algorithms and Combinatorics . Springer, Berlin, second edition, 1993

    1993

  12. [20]

    Classical deterministic complexity of Edmonds' problem and quantum entanglement

    Leonid Gurvits. Classical deterministic complexity of Edmonds' problem and quantum entanglement. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing ( STOC ) , pages 10--19, New York, NY, USA, 2003. Association for Computing Machinery

    2003

  13. [21]

    Aram W. Harrow. The church of the symmetric subspace. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.6595 , 2013

    2013 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Horn and Charles R

    Roger A. Horn and Charles R. Johnson. Matrix Analysis . Cambridge University Press, second edition, 2012

    2012

  15. [23]

    R. L. Hudson and G. R. Moody. Locally normal symmetric states and an analogue of de Finetti's theorem. Zeitschrift f \"u r Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie und Verwandte Gebiete , 33:343--351, 1976

    1976

  16. [24]

    Harrow and Ashley Montanaro

    Aram W. Harrow and Ashley Montanaro. Testing product states, quantum Merlin--Arthur games and tensor optimization. Journal of the ACM , 60(1):1--43, 2013

    2013

  17. [25]

    Limitations of semidefinite programs for separable states and entangled games

    Aram W Harrow, Anand Natarajan, and Xiaodi Wu. Limitations of semidefinite programs for separable states and entangled games. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 366(2):423--468, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    The QMA(2) universecomplexity, entanglement, and optimization

    Fernando Granha Jeronimo, Itai Leigh, and Pei Wu. The QMA(2) universecomplexity, entanglement, and optimization. SIGACT News , 57(1):64–99, March 2026

    2026

  19. [27]

    Extendibility of Werner states

    D \'a vid Jakab, Adrian Solymos, and Zolt \'a n Zimbor \'a s. Extendibility of Werner states. arXiv:2208.13743, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Tacla, and Carlton M

    Zhang Jiang, Alexandre B. Tacla, and Carlton M. Caves. Bosonic particle-correlated states: A nonperturbative treatment beyond mean field. Physical Review A , 96(2):023621, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Johnson and Lorenza Viola

    Peter D. Johnson and Lorenza Viola. Compatible quantum correlations: On extension problems for Werner and isotropic states. Physical Review A , 88(3):032323, 2013

    2013

  22. [30]

    Dimension independent disentanglers from unentanglement and applications

    Fernando Granha Jeronimo and Pei Wu. Dimension independent disentanglers from unentanglement and applications. In 39th Computational Complexity Conference ( CCC 2024) , volume 300 of Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics ( LIPIcs ) , pages 26:1--26:28. Schloss Dagst...

    2024

  23. [31]

    An argmax principle for sum-of-squares relaxations on the sphere

    Fernando Granha Jeronimo, Pei Wu, and Haonan Xu. An argmax principle for sum-of-squares relaxations on the sphere. Manuscript, 2026

    2026

  24. [32]

    Quantum Merlin--Arthur proof systems: Are multiple merlins more helpful to arthur? Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science , 2009(3), 2009

    Hirotada Kobayashi, Keiji Matsumoto, and Tomoyuki Yamakami. Quantum Merlin--Arthur proof systems: Are multiple merlins more helpful to arthur? Chicago Journal of Theoretical Computer Science , 2009(3), 2009

    2009

  25. [33]

    A de Finetti representation for finite symmetric quantum states

    Robert K \"o nig and Renato Renner. A de Finetti representation for finite symmetric quantum states. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 46(12):122108, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Remarks on the quantum de Finetti theorem for bosonic systems

    Mathieu Lewin, Phan Th \`a nh Nam, and Nicolas Rougerie. Remarks on the quantum de Finetti theorem for bosonic systems. Applied Mathematics Research eXpress , 2015(1):48--63, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Quantum de Finetti theorem under fully-one-way adaptive measurements

    Ke Li and Graeme Smith. Quantum de Finetti theorem under fully-one-way adaptive measurements. Physical Review Letters , 114(16):160503, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    Unentangled stoquastic Merlin--Arthur proof systems: The power of unentanglement without destructive interference

    Yupan Liu and Pei Wu. Unentangled stoquastic Merlin--Arthur proof systems: The power of unentanglement without destructive interference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.27886 , 2026

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Quantum separability in polynomial time

    Giulio Malavolta. Quantum separability in polynomial time. arXiv:2607.23773, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of measurements with an application to quantum data hiding

    William Matthews, Stephanie Wehner, and Andreas Winter. Distinguishability of quantum states under restricted families of measurements with an application to quantum data hiding. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 291(3):813--843, 2009

    2009

  31. [39]

    Miguel Navascu \'e s, Masaki Owari, and Martin B. Plenio. Power of symmetric extensions for entanglement detection. Physical Review A , 80(5):052306, 2009

    2009

  32. [40]

    Shifted Schur functions

    Andrei Okounkov and Grigori Olshanski. Shifted Schur functions. Algebra i Analiz , 9(2):73--146, 1997. English translation: St. Petersburg Mathematical Journal 9 (1998), no. 2, 239--300

    1997

  33. [41]

    Efficient quantum tomography

    Ryan O'Donnell and John Wright. Efficient quantum tomography. In Proceedings of the Forty-Eighth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing , STOC '16, pages 899--912. Association for Computing Machinery, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    A unified approach to quantum de Finetti theorems and SoS rounding via geometric quantization, 2024

    Sujit Rao. A unified approach to quantum de Finetti theorems and SoS rounding via geometric quantization, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Security of Quantum Key Distribution

    Renato Renner. Security of Quantum Key Distribution . PhD thesis, ETH Zurich, 2005

    2005

  36. [44]

    Symmetry of large physical systems implies independence of subsystems

    Renato Renner. Symmetry of large physical systems implies independence of subsystems. Nature Physics , 3(9):645--649, 2007

    2007

  37. [45]

    De Finetti theorems, mean-field limits and Bose--Einstein condensation, 2015

    Nicolas Rougerie. De Finetti theorems, mean-field limits and Bose--Einstein condensation, 2015. Lecture notes; revised 2020

    2015

  38. [46]

    On general minimax theorems

    Maurice Sion. On general minimax theorems. Pacific Journal of Mathematics , 8(1):171--176, 1958

    1958

  39. [47]

    Symmetric states of infinite tensor products of C^* -algebras

    Erling St rmer. Symmetric states of infinite tensor products of C^* -algebras. Journal of Functional Analysis , 3(1):48--68, 1969

    1969

  40. [48]

    Epsilon-net method for optimizations over separable states

    Yaoyun Shi and Xiaodi Wu. Epsilon-net method for optimizations over separable states. Theoretical Computer Science , 598:51--63, 2015

    2015

  41. [49]

    Terhal, Andrew C

    Barbara M. Terhal, Andrew C. Doherty, and David Schwab. Symmetric extensions of quantum states and local hidden variable theories. Physical Review Letters , 90(15):157903, 2003

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.